You are on page 1of 2

Citibank  v.

 Sabeniano  (Short  title)   PROVISION  


GR  #  156132  |  October  16,  2006   Rule  130  
Petitioner:  Citibank,  N.A.  (Formerly  First  National  City  Bank)  and  Investors  Finance   Section  34.  Similar  acts  as  evidence.  —  Evidence  that  one  did  or  did  not  do  a  certain  
Corporation,  doing  business  under  the  name  and  style  of  FNCB  Finance   thing   at   one   time   is   not   admissible   to   prove   that   he   did   or   did   not   do   the   same   or  
Respondent:  Modesta  R.  Sabeniano   similar   thing   at   another   time;;   but   it   may   be   received   to   prove   a   specific   intent   or  
(Rule  130,  Section  34)   knowledge;;  identity,  plan,  system,  scheme,  habit,  custom  or  usage,  and  the  like.    
   
FACTS     RULING  &  RATIO  
1.   Sabeniano  filed  a  complaint  against  Citibank  before  RTC  Makati  claiming  to   1.   No.  
have  substantial  deposits  and  money  market  placements  as  well  as  money   1.   In  the  assailed  decision,  CA  said  that  the  case  of  Dy  v.  Citibank  should    be  
market  placements  with  the  Ayala  Investment  and  Development  Corporation   considered   given   the   similarities   of   the   fraud,   machinations,   and   deceits  
(AIDC)   and   alleging   that   Citibank   refused   to   return   her   deposits   and   the   employed  by  the  Citibank  and  its  Account  Manager  Francisco  Tan.  
proceeds  of  her  money  market  placements  despite  her  repeated  demands.     o   The   fact   that   the   present   appeal   created   reasonable   doubts   as   to  
2.   Citibank   admitted   the   deposits   and   money   market   placements   with   them,   whether   the   9   PNs   were   indeed   executed   with   considerations,   the  
including   dollar   accounts   in   the   Citibank   branch   in   Citibank-­Geneva   but   doubts  are  similar  to  the  Dy  case  thus,  should  be  construed  against  
alleged  that  the  Sabeniano  later  obtained  several  loans  from  them,  for  which   Citibank  and  FNCB  Finance.  
she  executed  Promissory  Notes  and  secured  by  (a)  a  Declaration  of  Pledge   2.   Although  petitioner  Citibank  and  its  officer,  Mr.  Tan,  were  also  involved  in  the  
of  her  dollar  accounts  in  Citibank-­Geneva,  and  (b)  Deeds  of  Assignment  of   Dy   case,   that   is   the   only   connection   between   the   Dy   case   and   the   one   at  
her  money  market  placements  with  petitioner  FNCB  Finance.     bar.    Not  only  did  the  Dy  case  tackle  transactions  between  parties  other  than  
3.   When   Sabeniano   failed   to   pay   her   loans,   Citibank   exercised   its   right   to   off-­ the   present   parties,   the   transactions   are   also   absolutely   independent   and  
set   or   compensate   the   outstanding   loans   with   her   deposits   and   money   unrelated  to  those  in  the  instant  case.  
market  placements,  pursuant  to  the  Declaration  of  Pledge  and  the  Deeds  of   3.   It   is   apparent   that   the   CA   took   judicial   notice   of   the   Dy   case   not   as   a   legal  
Assignment  and  that  Citibank  informed  Sabeniano  of  such  through  letters  so   precedent,  but  rather  as  evidence  of  similar  acts  committed  by  Citibank  and  
they   were   surprised   when   six   years   later,   Sabeniano   made   repeated   Mr.  Tan.    
requests  for  the  said  withdrawal  .   4.   A  basic  rule  of  evidence,  however,  states  that,  evidence  that  one  did  or  did  
4.   Citibank  then  prayed  for  the  dismissal  of  the  complaint  and  for  the  award  of   not  do  a  certain  thing  at  one  time  is  not  admissible  to  prove  that  he  did  or  did  
damages,  and  fees.   not   do   the   same   or   similar   thing   at   another   time;;   but   it   may   be   received   to  
5.   When   the   parties   failed   to   reach   a   compromise   during   the   pre-­trial   hearing   prove   a   specific   intent   or   knowledge,   identity,   plan,   system,   scheme,   habit,  
trial  proper  ensued  and  the  parties  proceeded  with  the  presentation  of  their   custom  or  usage,  and  the  like.    
respective  evidence.     5.   The   rule   is   founded   upon   reason,   public   policy,   justice   and   judicial  
6.   Ten  years  after  the  filing  of  the  complaint  ,  RTC  (1)  declared  as  illegal,  null   convenience.  The  fact  that  a  person  has  committed  the  same  or  similar  acts  
and  void  the  setoff  effected  and  ordering  Citibank  to  refund  the  amount  with   at   some   prior   time   affords,   as   a   general   rule,   no   logical   guaranty   that   he  
legal   interest   (2)   declared   Sabeniano   as   indebted   to   the   Citibank   and   committed  the  act  in  question  because,  subjectively,  a  man's  mind  and  even  
ordered  to  pay  with  no  interest  and  penalty  charges  from  the  time  of  setoff.   his   modes   of   life   may   change;;   and,   objectively,   the   conditions   under   which  
(3)  Dismissed  all  other  claims  and  counterclaims.   he   may   find   himself   at   a   given   time   may   likewise   change   and   thus   induce  
7.   CA   affirmed   with   modification   the   RTC   and   ruled   entirely   in   favor   of   him  to  act  in  a  different  way.    
Sabeniano.   (1)   declared   as   illegal,   null   and   void   the   set-­off   and   ordered   6.   If  evidence  of  similar  acts  are  to  be  invariably  admitted,  they  will  give  rise  to  
Citibank   to   refund   the   amount   with   legal   interest   (2)   As   Citibank   failed   to   a  multiplicity  of  collateral  issues  and  will  subject  the  defendant  to  surprise  as  
establish  by  competent  evidence  the  indebtedness  of  Sabeniano,  such  was   well  as  confuse  the  court  and  prolong  the  trial.  
declared  as  without  legal  and  factual  basis  (3)  as  Citibank  failed  to  account   7.   The   factual   backgrounds   of   the   two   cases   are   so   different   and  
Sabeniano's   money   market   placements,   savings   account   and   current   unrelated   that   the   Dy   case   cannot   be   used   to   prove   specific   intent,  
accountsthe   bank   is   ordered   to   return   the   same,   in   accordance   with   the   knowledge,  identity,  plan,  system,  scheme,  habit,  custom  or  usage  on  
terms   and   conditions   agreed   upon   as   evidenced   by   the   certificates   of   the   part   of   Citibank   or   Mr.   Tan,   to   defraud   respondent   in   the   present  
investments.   case.  
8.   Both  parties  made  separate  attempts  to  bring  the  CA  ruling  before  the  SC.      
  DISPOSITION  
ISSUE/S   IN   VIEW   OF   THE   FOREGOING,   the   instant   Petition   is   PARTLY   GRANTED.   The  
1.   W/N  the  Dy  case  can  be  used  as  evidence  with  regard  to  similar  acts   assailed   Decision   of   the   Court   of   Appeals   in   CA-­G.R.   No.   51930,   dated   26   March  
  2002,   as   already   modified   by   its   Resolution,   dated   20   November   2002,   is   hereby  
  AFFIRMED  WITH  MODIFICATION.  
   
   
NOTES   8.   It  was  only  FNCB  Finance  who  claimed  that  they  lost  the  original  copies  of  
  the   PNs   when   it   moved   to   a   new   office.   Citibank   did   not   make   a   similar  
Dy  Case  compared  to  present  case   contention.  
1.   In   the   Dy   case,   Caedo   obatined   loans   from   Citibank   secured   by   a   Third   9.   Citibank  proffered  the  excuse  that  they  were  still  looking  for  the  documents  
Party  Real  Estate  Mortgage  of  the  properties  of  Caedo's  aunt,  Rosalind  Dy.     in   their   storage   or   warehouse   to   explain   the   delay   and   difficulty   in   the  
2.   It   turned   out   that   Rosalind   Dy   and   her   husband   were   unaware   of   the   said   retrieval  thereof,  but  not  their  absence  or  loss.    
loans   and   the   mortgage.   The   transactions   were   carried   out   exclusively   10.   The   original   documents   in   this   case,   such   as   the   MCs   and   letters,   were  
between  Caedo  and  Mr.  Tan  of  Citibank.     destroyed   and,   thus,   unavailable   for   presentation   before   the   RTC,   when   a  
3.   RTC   found   Mr.   Tan   guilty   of   fraud   for   his   participation   in   the   questionable   fire  broke  out  on  the  7th  floor  of  the  office  building  of  Citibank.    
transactions,  essentially  because  he  allowed  Caedo  to  take  out  the  signature   11.   There   is   no   showing   that   the   fire   was   intentionally   set.   The   fire   destroyed  
cards,   when   these   should   have   been   signed   by   the   Dy   spouses   personally   relevant  documents,  not  just  of  the  present  case,  but  also  of  other  cases,    
before  him.     12.   The   foregoing   would   have   been   sufficient   to   allow   the   presentation   of  
4.   Although  the  Dy  spouses  signatures  in  the  PNs  and  Third  Party  Real  Estate   photocopies   or   microfilm   copies   of   the   PNs,   MCs,   and   letters   by   the  
Mortgage   were   forged,   they   were   approved   by   the   signature   verifier   since   petitioners  as  secondary  evidence  to  establish  the  existence  of  respondents  
the  signature  cards  against  which  they  were  compared  to  were  also  forged.     loans,  as  an  exception  to  the  best  evidence  rule.  
5.   Neither   the   RTC   nor   the   Court   of   Appeals,   however,   categorically   declared    
Mr.   Tan   personally   responsible   for   the   forgeries,   which,   in   the   narration   of  
the  facts,  were  more  likely  committed  by  Caedo.  
6.   In   the   Petition   at   bar,   Sabeniano   dealt   with   Mr.   Tan   directly,   there   was   no  
third  party  involved.  
7.   Although   Sabeniano   attempted   to   raise   suspicion   as   to   the   authenticity   of  
her   signatures   on   certain   documents,   these   were   nothing   more   than   naked  
allegations  with  no  corroborating  evidence;;  worse,  even  her  own  allegations  
were  replete  with  inconsistencies.    
8.   She  could  not  even  establish  in  what  manner  or  under  what  circumstances  
the  fraud  or  forgery  was  committed,  or  how  Mr.  Tan  could  have  been  directly  
responsible  for  the  same.  
 
Best  Evidence  Rule  
1.   SC   disagrees   in   the   pronouncement   by   CA   summarily   dismissing   the  
documentary   evidence   submitted   by   Citibank   based   on   its   broad   and  
indiscriminate  application  of  the  best  evidence  rule.  
2.   In  general,  the  best  evidence  rule  requires  that  the  highest  available  degree  
of   proof   must   be   produced.   Accordingly,   for   documentary   evidence,   the  
contents  of  a  document  are  best  proved  by  the  production  of  the  document  
itself,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  secondary  or  substitutionary  evidence.    
3.   The   best   evidence   rule   applies   only   when   the   subject   of   the   inquiry   is   the  
contents   of   the   document   thus,   when   a   document   is   presented   to   prove   its  
existence  or  condition  it  is  offered  not  as  documentary,  but  as  real,  evidence.    
4.   The  best  evidence  rule  was  not  violated  when  it  considered  and  weighed  in  
evidence  the  photocopies  and  microfilm  copies  of  the  PNs,  MCs,  and  letters  
submitted  by  Citibank  to  establish  the  existence  of  Sabeniano's  loans.    
5.   The   terms   or   contents   of   these   documents   were   never   the   point   of  
contention.    
6.   Alternatively,  even  if  it  is  granted  that  the  best  evidence  rule  should  apply  to  
the   evidence   presented   by   Citibank   regarding   the   existence   of   the   loans,   it  
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  rule  admits  exceptions.  
7.   The   execution   or   existence   of   the   original   copies   of   the   documents   was  
established   through   the   testimonies   of   witnesses,   such   as   Mr.   Tan,   before  
whom  most  of  the  documents  were  personally  executed  by  Sabeniano.    

You might also like